Four Thirds... and more: From a glance at the equipment owned by people writing on this website, I feel like the beginner I probably am. I've been using a Canon G9. It suits me because...

Ansel Rosewater

From a glance at the equipment owned by people writing on this website, I feel like the beginner I probably am.

I've been using a Canon G9. It suits me because of its photographic qualities and its weight/size. I couldn't carry a SLR around.

I have been looking at the four thirds cameras, and frankly I have some questions to which I'd appreciate some advice.

Will a 4/3 camera be a significant improvement in photographic quality over my G9?

If so, is there at 4/3 camers in the $600 range that you can recommend?

Many thanks.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

Uh, excuse me, but WHAT is a 4/3 camera ?

A Bridge Camera ???

Ansel Rosewater

Here's Wikipedia's answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

My understanding is that a 4/3 camera has a sensor that is almost as large as DSL cameras, yet has the weight and size of small, point and shoot cameras. From what I can gather, they are "pocketable" (makes a lump) but can be carried in a jacket or back pocket.

richnash46 Loc: Texas

Ansel Rosewater wrote:

Here's Wikipedia's answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

My understanding is that a 4/3 camera has a sensor that is almost as large as DSL cameras, yet has the weight and size of small, point and shoot cameras. From what I can gather, they are "pocketable" (makes a lump) but can be carried in a jacket or back pocket.

Actually, a 4/3 sensor is roughly only about a third the size of a full frame sensor, closer in size (but still smaller) to the APS-C sensor used in say Nikon's DX cameras but considerably larger than most bridge/compact P&S cameras, so yes I would say that going to a 4/3 camera would be a considerable improvement in image quality in most cases. :thumbup: ;)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Your choice will depend on how pocketable the camera needs to be. Even with one of the smaller lenses, a 4/3 camera will still be a bit of a lump to carry about. Having said that, you may be used to bulky cameras, since the G9 isn't exactly diminutive. But if you want a longer focal length, the lens will guarantee that it will not be pocketable (unless your pockets are the size of saddlebags!).

Another possibility is to check out a newer version of the type of camera that you are used to. For example, the Nikon P7700 has the same size of sensor as the G9, but it is a latest-generation CMOS sensor, and despite the fact that it is a fairly bright lens (f2-f4), it still gives 7.1x optical zoom. I've only seen pictures of it, so it's hard to gauge size, but Nikon describe it as "surprisingly" compact.

The usual advice that I see in UHH is to have some in-shop hands-on experience with the cameras that you are considering. Then you will know if you like the feel, size, features etc.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Ansel Rosewater wrote:

From a glance at the equipment owned by people wri... (show quote)

I believe that the idea of the 4/3 camera will take the place of DSLRs in a few years. It is both cheaper and more reliable to eliminate the mechanical parts of cameras: the mirror and the shutter.

Using smaller sensors also allows smaller lenses, further reducing the cost of manufacture.

Right now they are asking a premium for them but they should be significantly less expensive than DSLRs.

The main downside with smaller sensors is that they do not have the ISO performance of larger sensors. The smaller the sensor the more noise.

Another slight disadvantage of 4/3 cameras may come up if you change lenses frequently. They don't have a mirror protecting the sensor so they are more suseptable to dust on the sensor and will require more care when changing lenses and more frequent sensor cleaning. All that stuff you blow off your DSLR mirror will be on the sensor.

The main thing to be sure of is that you get one with a viewfinder. Not putting a viewfinder on these cameras is stupid, IMHO. You can't take outdoors pictures without one.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If you do decide to opt for a compact system camera, the Nikon 1 range is as small as they come (in particular the J1/J2). The V1 is dearer and larger but has a viewfinder.

MtnMan Loc: ID

R.G. wrote:

If you do decide to opt for a compact system camera, the Nikon 1 range is as small as they come (in particular the J1/J2). The V1 is dearer and larger but has a viewfinder.

Why would anyone buy a camera without a viewfinder other than having one to slip into a pocket?

Perhaps if you limited to taking pictures indoors or in Portland, OR?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

MtnMan wrote:

Why would anyone buy a camera without a viewfinder?

I see your point, but it seemed like a good idea to point out both options.

I don't have a camera with a fully articulated viewscreen, but some have suggested that it's a reasonable alternative to a viewfinder.

MtnMan Loc: ID

R.G. wrote:

MtnMan wrote:

Why would anyone buy a camera without a viewfinder?

I see your point, but it seemed like a good idea to point out all the options so that Ansel can make up their own mind.

I don't have a camera with a fully articulated viewscreen, but some have suggested that it's a reasonable alternative to a viewfinder.

I have a Nikon D5100 with a fully articulated screen. I love it for many uses I hadn't anticipated and hearily recommend it.

But it doesn't work in sunlight either so is not a substitute for a viewfinder.

EstherP

Ansel Rosewater wrote:

Here's Wikipedia's answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

My understanding is that a 4/3 camera has a sensor that is almost as large as DSL cameras, yet has the weight and size of small, point and shoot cameras. From what I can gather, they are "pocketable" (makes a lump) but can be carried in a jacket or back pocket.

From that description I would think you are referring to Micro 4/3 cameras.
I have not kept up with the details, but do know that they are considerable smaller and lighter in weight than the "regular" 4/3 cameras.

I am very happy with my 4/3 system Olympus E-5 camera, have had it for almost two years now.
EstherP

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Here is a chart of sensors for size comparison.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Nikonian72 wrote:

Here is a chart of sensors for size comparison.

Do you know what the "Four Thirds" refers to? Four thirds of what?

EstherP

MtnMan wrote:

Nikonian72 wrote:

Here is a chart of sensors for size comparison.

Do you know what the "Four Thirds" refers to? Four thirds of what?

I cheated and copied this from Wikipedia:
"The name of the system stems from the size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3" type or 4/3 type sensor. The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3" diameter."
De numbers also pop up in the aspect ratio of the native image size: "4" wide, "3" tall, although other aspect rations may be set through the menu.
EstherP

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

MtnMan wrote:

Do you know what the "Four Thirds" refers to? Four thirds of what?

The name of the system stems from the ratio size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3-inch type or 4/3 type sensor.

The usual size of the sensor is 18×13.5 mm (22.5 mm diagonal), with an imaging area of 17.3×13.0 mm (21.63 mm diagonal). The sensor's area is about 3040% smaller than APS-C sensors used in most other DSLRs, but around 9 times larger than the 1/2.5" sensors typically used in compact digital cameras. Incidentally, the imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is almost identical to that of 110 film.

The emphasis on the 4:3 image aspect ratio sets Four Thirds apart from other DSLR systems, which usually adhere to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the traditional 35 mm format.